2nd?

“Further, no pastor has all the skills to lead well.”
Maybe he should focus on being a servant instead.

I left my home church due to:

1. Vicious lay leader who interrupted, disrespected, ostracized, and gossiped about anyone who wasn’t Dispensationalist, even though the church had no official stance on eschatological viewpoints. Oh, and even though he was a wealthy professional, he took thousands of dollars from the benevolence fund at the same time that needy single mothers were turned away.

2. The pastor who believed that divorce didn’t solve any problems. I invited him to hear the stories from women in his church who were domestic violence victims, but he refused to visit our church’s support group — even once. I know some Christians don’t see abuse as biblical grounds for divorce, but to have no compassion on women who were being beaten was cold and cruel, and frankly a way of telling the women to shut up.

So I and several others picked up, took our friends and family members, and went to another church.

Tip: Don’t try to change a church. (Many of us have tried.) Just vote with your feet. You can’t fix an institution; but God holds you responsible for protecting your family’s emotional and spiritual health from cold and vicious leaders.

Third, “a pastor pays for the errors of his subordinates.

Doriani’s usage of the word “subordinate” is quite telling. I believe this is how these New Calvinist pastors view everyone else in the church, i.e. as underlings and beneath them. Arrogance – one of the hallmark traits of these Calvinista pastors.

@ Deb:
Yep. Sick ’em!

I have seen Machiavelli mentioned in another TGC article. They are confirming my already strong suspicion that TGC is teemining with Machiavellians.

Jimmy wrote:

It’s a short and incomplete article

It’s a totally unbiblical article to try to get pew sitters to sit down and shut up. Aside from that, he did a great job.

Ì always thought/assumed that PROTESTants by definition protested. The earliest ones did NOT stay silent – they spoke up about abuses in the church, they posted their grievances publically to church doors – 16th century version of posting at twitter and facebook and blogging?! All – lay people as well as clergy – were considered to be equal before God. But ìf the SBC no longer believes in ‘the priesthood of all believers’ . . .

Velour wrote:

That’s a lot to get worked up about.
So is false teaching.

Velour, yes, and it’s clear that TGC denies the New Birth (being born again). The question should be: “Why is TGC spiritually killing people?” (keeping them away from the biblical Jesus?). That would be nearer to the truth, TGC being a proponent of a false gospel, through and through. They have all the marks of a cult, don’t they?

In my old church we had a pastor and three elders. The pastor would say of them that one would agree to anything, one wanted to throw everyone out of the church, and the third was as “daft as a brush”. The church thrived because they and the members had a common goal of spreading the Gospel. Everything was discussed, everything agreed in spite of differences. We were part of the priesthood of all believers. The church is not a business and it doesn’t run on systems. Yes, every denomination has its own theological standpoint but within the local church you get a cross section of society. and each individual uses his talents and abilities to further the cause of Christ. If you see the person sitting in front of the pulpit or next you in the pew as anything other than a brother or sister in Christ, you will have the problems Mr Doriani seems to be addressing. So his points largely miss the point and betray a defective view of the church.
1. We have been told to expect wolves trying to devour the flock
2. The church worships and prays, it doesn’t negotiate. We don’t sit in a boardroom.
3. The church is not made up of subordinates and staff members
4. The pastor has been appointed by the church so he should have been in agreement with its principles and vision before taking up the position. If he wasn’t in agreement, he shouldn’t have taken the job.
5.if the pastor sins he should seek forgiveness like everyone else in front of the church. He is to feed the flock, not lead it.
Finally his closing statements about churches criticising their pastors for not being perfect is risible and betrays an arrogance that puts the pastor on a pedestal as if he were above criticism and devalues the worth of every church member.

Interesting post; I was an elder in a first among equals eldership that is a feature of many Neo-cal churches, though I would not have considered our church Neo-cal.

Are people sometimes unfair in their comments to pastoral leadership? Yes–part and parcel of interacting with humanity. Because it was a smaller church (less than 200 members) we made it a practice to meet with those with concerns and complaints one-on-one. It is amazing how a culture of listening to those with concerns, giving them face-time rather than passive-aggressively speaking to or at them in sermons can deescalate conflict. There were times, with one individual in particular, I told him his complaints were valid and understood–but that we simply lacked the capacity as elders to be who he wanted us to be; but we were committed to being the best we could be with God’s help. He understood and stayed with the church until his death.

One of the things that helped us as elders, I think, is that several of us had leadership experience in the military. Leadership schools in the military look at dissent in a surprisingly different way than typical church leadership. In the military troops complaining is considered a somewhat healthy part of normal life. The time to be concerned is when everyone goes silent; that is when you need to watch your back as a leader and when unit discipline is about to go south.

Leadership has to be based on earned trust–too many churches purport to lead based on a positional authority rather than earned trust. To earn trust, one must be committed to ongoing conversation with those being led. There is too much emphasis in today’s church growth movements, and by observation and personal experience, in the Neo-cal movements such as 9 Marks and SGM, on positional authority and empire building. A sense that the goal of the pastor is to have people committed to his personal vision for the church. I think Paul expressed the vision that should be primary for all pastors and leadership teams–I will do my best to express his vision in the Scripture passage where Paul said he labored in prayer to see Christ formed in His people. If a pastor’s vision is different than this, he is pursuing a business model rather than a biblical model of leadership. I think empire-building on the part of these church movements is actually destroying the witness of the church and doing much harm to the weaker among us that Scripture so clearly tells us to care for.

But I have hope that as we get smaller and smaller, Jesus will once again be the central, and only, focus of the church…

Want to see something really interesting? Do a Google search on “Gospel Coalition Machiavelli”. It will ring some major alarm bells.

Argh,do these pastors ever let up on being catered to? The church does not revolve around the feelings of the pastor. It’s not the pastor’s responsibility to bring change to the church.
The usage of, “subordinates”,says it all.We are not all equal in this man’s church, there are layers of hierarchy in his command. The pew seater is the most problematic, they might actual have a POV, differing from that of the management.

@ okrapod:
Agree, not just a *reformed* issue. They seem to bring the issues up rather frequently though.

The whole king and priest thing really gets me. That is old testament stuff and we are under a new covenant. You NEVER hear these guys talking about dying to self putting others first. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world and He emphasizes laying ones life down for one another, serving one another in love, worshiping Him in Spirit and in Truth. In my experience and observation these young pastors only really serve themselves and the ideology that set them up in their little kingdom and when it does not work out the way the play book says it should they get mad at the very people they are there to serve and then they get deeper in petting themselves rather then reading there bibles for themselves BEGGING God to teach them His ways. They seem to be rather thick headed and unteachable relying on others ideas rather then learning to search out a matter for themselves. Is it any wonder why so many people are giving up on organized churches that have become a little kingdom rather then a loving body?

hoodaticus wrote:

Philosophical question: can you call yourself a Protestant if you don’t believe in Sola Scriptura, as the legalists described in the OP clearly do not?

Yes. Of course.

Are Methodists protestant? Are Anglicans including Episcopalians protestant? We are, and we do not believe in sola scriptura. I did not believe in sola scriptura even when I was a Baptist, but I feel much more comfortable now that I have found similarly minded people with whom to align myself. Would the Calvinists be good with that? Nope.

And to further complicate things, we Anglo-Catholic Episcopalians also think that you can be catholic without being Catholic. Would the Roman Catholics be good with that? Nope.

We believe prima scriptura and then also recognize the place for both reason and tradition. Methodists are protestants, but they believe ‘prima scriptura’ like we do, except that Wesley added ‘experience’ also to reason and tradition.

So, yes, a significant number of protestants do not subscribe to sola scriptura. IMO there are also a lot of protestants who claim to believe sola scriptura but what they actually mean is something quite different when it comes to the application of scripture.

The moral of the story is: other people’s paradigms and definitions and rules do not apply to generic you unless you let them. Generic ‘they’ are not the boss of generic ‘you’. There is no need to accept other people’s ideas much less their definitions based merely and solely on their say so.

From my experience at a couple of churches (including my current one).

1 – yep, happens a lot. Sometimes from congregants, sometimes from elders, and sometimes from other staff members. I’m willing to give people the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe they didn’t intend to lie, but were just misinformed. But that still doesn’t excuse them from talking to everyone except us or from actively and secretly campaigning against us. Seriously, just come talk to us.
2 – We’ve had plenty of people disagree with us theologically, but that’s never stopped us from working well together. Love covers a multitude of opinions. But we’re also not combative. This seems like maybe a personality issue, unless theological opinions are just an excuse to do #1 or 4.
3 – When I think of major sin in the church I think of manipulation, duplicitousness, authoritativeness, and gossip. Yes, I have seen elders, other staff members, and lay leaders do all of those and the church has suffered or we have left. But I don’t think that’s the stuff other people would call major sin.
4 – Machiavelli is not the person a Christian should emulate. When new eyes look at an organization they will see things that could be done more efficiently, things done superbly, and things that are destructive. If the preacher calls out the sinful attitudes in the culture of the church (cliques, control issues, racism, nationalism, secrecy, etc.) there will be people who are offended and actively push back.
5 – Ha, the current complaint against us is that they didn’t think the preacher’s jokes were funny and that he should tell more stories. There is a feeling that we must be all things to all people or that we are held to a higher standard. Calling out sin is a must for everyone – though it can be unpleasant. But if you’re just disappointed? (as in you don’t like the preaching style, the way VBS is done, the arrangement of the chairs, etc.) That probably doesn’t need to be aired out.

No doubt some preachers and pastors are wolves. Some are immature. Some have been burned and have grown bitter and hurtful. But there are some who do take their job seriously and see their position and authority as a grave responsibility and expect to be judged more harshly for it. It’s not a terrible article.rrangement of the chairs, etc.) That probably doesn't need to be aired out. No doubt some preachers and pastors are wolves. Some are immature. Some have been burned and have grown bitter and hurtful. But there are some who do take their job seriously and see their position and authority as a grave responsibility and expect to be judged more harshly for it. It's not a terrible article.

Darlene wrote:

Doriani’s usage of the word “subordinate” is quite telling.

Maybe it’s because of this blog and others, or because I just finished The Keepers, but I can’t see this as anything but an attempt to excuse pastors who give a free pass to abuse.

My ‘subordinate’ did this terrible thing and the church is blaming ME! How dare they!

They want to be in charge and ‘kings’ (which is not in the pastor job description imo) but they don’t want to be held responsible for anything. And if they shuffle someone around or refuse to let them go and they harm more children, it’s not their fault.

I’m not surprised that Doriani quotes Machiavelli. Reformed theology is more philosophy than Gospel. It is a particular system of philosophical thought based on Calvin’s interpretation of Scripture, intended to ensnare the mind but not feed the Spirit.

I suspect that many a young reformer has the following Machiavelli quote stuck on their refrigerator “Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved.” Authoritarian shepherds control, manipulate, and intimidate … rather than love their flock.

Nancy2 wrote:

What if the pastor is a wolf?

“And from among your own selves will arise men speaking twisted things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore be alert!” (Acts 20:30-31)

New Calvinism is twisted belief and practice.

@ NJ:
So true!

Lea wrote:

We have heard a number of people in ministry complain that they had no idea people didn’t like them, or their policies, until something happened and it was already too far gone to fix. I think the culture of ‘don’t complain’ is partly responsible for that. If you feel like you can complain and are heard, that solves a number of issues and if the leadership actually listens and realizes that they don’t always know everything that solves some other ones.

Agreed. Though it’s not always that people don’t complain, it’s that they don’t complain to the appropriate people. Again, if you have a problem with me, tell me. Don’t tell everyone except me.

Awesome post, Deb! Loved the history lesson. Great pickup on the Machiavelli quote. It’s a bit scary when TGC takes to quoting him!

And then, the old “prophet priest and king” examples. Remember who was into that one? Our gone, and now resurrected, pastor, Mark Driscoll. Who could ever forget King Sutton? Look how that turned out.

I am now involved in a church in which my pastors are loving to the people, can do a bang up sermon, and function as good administrators of the church. You can be sure I had observed them closely for close to two years before joining, and since that time. Believe it or not, it is possible.

The younger of the two pastor was called to serve as the lead pastor in a congregation in a pleasant locale. I was sad to hear of it. I assumed that he would choose the position since it most likely offered more money, prestige etc. Well, I just about dropped my jaw when I heard that, after praying for two months, he turned it down to stay put in our church!

So, it is possible to have a couple of pastors who do it all well. They key here is the size and the willingness to delegate. My church is not a mega church. As you know, it is good size for our area-@700. Most people in the church choose to help out in all sorts of areas.

But, the pastors are still around for it all. After each serve, the pastors stand at the doors, shaking hands, inquiring after each person, they show up to the midweek dinners, and many of the activities. They are not running around giving conferences, writing books, etc.

Perhaps the most telling comment came from the older of the two pastors. During Holy Week, I remarked that he must be quite tired with all the services, etc. He told me that it is his favorite week of the year, while wearing a big smile on his face late one evening after a service.

It took me awhile to find this church but I am so grateful that I did.

TGC seems to be involved in creating a low expectation for pastors in their tribe. I think it is because they want to have it all-mega churches with celebrity pastors who write books, give talks at conferences, and occasionally show up at their church to declare some new *study* using the books of their BFFs.

Donna wrote:

The whole king and priest thing really gets me. That is old testament stuff and we are under a new covenant.

I totally agree with you. Remember Mark Driscoll.

Donna wrote:

The whole king and priest thing really gets me. That is old testament stuff and we are under a new covenant.

So true Donna. The same can be said for the “Moses Model” of leadership. I think Calvary Chapel, and the ARC use it. I think it’s a way to derive hierarchy from the Bible. But given Moses’ track record, it seems like a bad idea to use him as a template.

Doriani does have a point in that we have developed a system that places massive expectations on one guy who rules over the organization. He thinks we should adjust our expectations. I think we should adjust the ONE guy and the ruling OVER. A TEAM of servants being a foundation UNDER is a more New Testament solution. In churches that work, I think you will often find that this is the case.

“Why Do Churches Wound Their Pastors?” Why can you get injured on exercise equipment? Most trainers will tell you that gym equipment will injure you if you use it wrong. Or wrongly.

Janey wrote:

Tip: Don’t try to change a church. (Many of us have tried.) Just vote with your feet. You can’t fix an institution; but God holds you responsible for protecting your family’s emotional and spiritual health from cold and vicious leaders.

From experience, I have to agree. Fighting leadership happy in its dysfunction is a sysyphusian task. How much better to worship, serve and give where you can feel appreciated and see positive fruit. Staying in a sick church can make you an accomplice.

Lea wrote:

TGC wrote: “Machiavelli wrote for and was supported by lukewarm Christians who loved their earthly fatherland more than heaven, Caesar more than Christ, social success more than virtue.”

It’s always amazing to me how Calvinistas can just rewrite the views of others to fit their paradigm. It’s no wonder you can’t have an honest discussion with any of them.

And as others are saying, but I just want to repeat, pastors are not kings and do have have any of the authority of kings. And ALL Christians are priests.

The Gospel Coalition Asks “Why Do Churches Wound Their Pastors?”

Given the source, my Newspeak-to-English translator gives “HOW! DARE!! THEY!!!”
i.e. a Predator highly offended that the Prey fights back instead of passively presenting their throats for his fangs.

Christiane wrote:

IF a denomination is denying the existence of ‘choice’ (free will), then it may not view a human person as someone with the dignity of being made in the image of God and, bearing a soul given directly from God, has a ‘conscience’ which serves as a moral guide.

“Fifty billion years of Matter in Motion…”
— The Shining Path, Peruvian Maoist terrorist group

Our current transitional pastor is encouraging us to seek a pastor that is willing to come along side of us exactly where we are, and not to lead us around by the nose-ring as is the practice of the YRR bunch! Pastors wouldn’t have as many problems “leading” as the author points out in this article, if they would just come along side and serve with the rest of the church! That’s my understanding of what a pastor is to do…oh, and LOVING the congregation wouldn’t hurt, either. Jesus made it patently clear that the greatest in the Kingdom is the servant of all. Somewhere along the line, I think the seminaries forgot to teach that to these young’ns.
Our former YRR Neo-cal pastor once told my daughter, “we didn’t come here to just serve, serve, serve all the time.” I think that pretty well sums up their perspective on what being a pastor means to them! Totally clueless.

Dee wrote:

Great pickup on the Machiavelli quote. It’s a bit scary when TGC takes to quoting him!

When you have to put your faith in Machiavelli because your God doesn’t know what he’s doing…

” … I must say that I am perplexed by this seminary professor’s reference to Niccolò Machiavelli. When someone quotes Machiavelli, it is usually not done in a favorable light.”

I thought about Deb’s words, and I remembered how it was that a very prominent political/religious figure in Washington D.C. used to speak admiringly of Mao and of Hitler ….

the man’s name was Doug Coe and he is a founder of the National Prayer Breakfast ….. oh, his followers have explained that what Doug Coe admired about these ‘strong leaders’ was how their followers were so intensely devoted to them

Doug Coe thought that Christians should also be unquestioningly submissive in their religion.

So there is a precedent. Of sorts. Take a look:

“Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler were three men. Think of the immense power these three men had… But they bound themselves together in an agreement… Two years before they moved into Poland, these three men had… systematically a plan drawn out… to annihilate the entire Polish population and destroy by numbers every single house… every single building in Warsaw and then to start on the rest of Poland.” Coe adds that it worked; they killed six and a half million “Polish people.” Though he calls Nazis “these enemies of ours,” he compares their commitment to Jesus’ demands: “Jesus said, ‘You have to put me before other people. And you have to put me before yourself.’ Hitler, that was the demand to be in the Nazi party. You have to put the Nazi party and its objectives ahead of your own life and ahead of other people.” (Doug Coe)

Loren Haas wrote:

Fighting leadership happy in it’s dysfunction is a sysyphusian task.

Hard for the “leadership” to see anything wrong when THEY’re the ones who personally benefit from The Way Things Are.

KYLE: But Dad, isn’t that Fascism?
KYLE’S DAD: No it isn’t, Son. Because we don’t call it Fascism. Do you understand?
KYLE: Do you?
— South Park, “Sexual Harassment Panda”
(Immediately after this, KYLE’S DAD then reminds KYLE of how their family has gotten rich and powerful under the lawsuit-happy New Order. Did I mention that KYLE’s parents are “Remember-the-Holocaust!” Activist Jews?)

Where is the Holy Spirit in the neo-Cal theology?
Why is the fruit of the Spirit not RECOGNIZED in their strange theology?
Is it because they are very alpha-male-oriented, and they see the fruit of the Spirit as ‘powerless’?

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Has anyone heard the speculation that Machiavelli wrote “The Prince” as much as a satire/parody of power politics than as a how-to book?

Yes. It comes off as something in between to me. These things might work but that doesn’t make this an endorsement of them?

Of course, the get rid of your enemies and their entire family kind of reminds me of the evil overlord list.

Lea wrote:

Root 66 wrote:
Our former YRR Neo-cal pastor once told my daughter, “we didn’t come here to just serve, serve, serve all the time.”
*Argh*
These are people who the congregation is paying. What do they think they are being paid FOR? Maybe that is at the heart of the issue. A lot of them seem to think they are being paid to show up on sundays and be listened to with adoring ears and obeyed in all things. I bet you could get somebody to do that for free.

When she told me that, my response was, “then he needs to go, go, go!” Our church is very small (less than 100 people) and we didn’t have room for a pastor who thinks he shouldn’t have to work in the church. His attitude reminds me of a poster I used to have: It was the picture of an orangutan saying, “Sometimes I sits and thinks and sometimes I just sits!” Rolling up his sleeves and coming alongside to help was a totally foreign concept to him.

ishy wrote:

okrapod wrote:

So, yes, a significant number of protestants do not subscribe to sola scriptura. IMO there are also a lot of protestants who claim to believe sola scriptura but what they actually mean is something quite different when it comes to the application of scripture.

Indeed. The Calvinistas will talk about being dedicated to Sola Scriptura quite a bit. But then they ignore large swaths of Scripture, including most of the gospels. Claiming to uphold it really doesn’t mean much to me.

Calvin subscribed to Sola Scriptura. Yet he felt compelled to write this great, big, humongous, extra-biblical BOOK ‘splaining it all to us. Can someone tell me how that works? 😉

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Calvin subscribed to Sola Scriptura. Yet he felt compelled to write this great, big, humongous, extra-biblical BOOK ‘splaining it all to us. Can someone tell me how that works?

Obviously Scriptura got it wrong and Calvin was ‘splaining what it all REALLY Meant.
(Kind of like Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddy, Sun Myung Moon, etc?)

There is a problem with ‘scriptura’ whether sola or not. Just listen to how many different opinions are expressed just here on TWW comments-many of which seem to be somebody’s understanding of scripture. Take any topic and it is easy to find several very different ideas apparently all based on scripture. Shoot, I can even disagree with myself several times over on the same topic based on scripture this or scripture that. I just think that things are not all that clear cut. Which is why, IMO, the church(es) have been explaining stuff from the get go.

@ Rob:
#5….drives me crazy! Why is visiting the sick and elderly viewed as menial work? Faithful congregants who have given to the church get shut out because Mr Important has books to write, conferences to go to. Sad commentary on some pastors who know so little, care so little about their flock.

okrapod wrote:

There is a problem with ‘scriptura’ whether sola or not. Just listen to how many different opinions are expressed just here on TWW comments-many of which seem to be somebody’s understanding of scripture. Take any topic and it is easy to find several very different ideas apparently all based on scripture. Shoot, I can even disagree with myself several times over on the same topic based on scripture this or scripture that. I just think that things are not all that clear cut. Which is why, IMO, the church(es) have been explaining stuff from the get go.

Imagine trying to understand the Eucharist without reference to the Passover lamb, or to the ‘manna’ in the desert, or the actual literal words of Our Lord when He instituted the Eucharist …. or the concept of ‘Body of Christ’ and its relationship to the community of all the faithful

even our Jewish friends recognize more connections in our celebration of the Eucharist than many who have long since left the Tiber behind many centuries ago; our Jewish friends UNDERSTAND ‘to be present again; to make present again’ at the first Passover

and they see the Eucharist celebrated in the same concept: that time and place are no longer a barriers to our being with Christ as we celebrate holy communion

The pastor of a mega church in my town doesn’t visit people who are sick either. Five years ago when my neighbor was dying, he didn’t come visit him. Even when he was transferred to a large hospital up in Dallas, only a few elders visited him. But the pastor didn’t. This was probably the sickest person in his congregation at the time and he couldn’t drive 90 minutes to see him. Made me sort of sick. I saw this pastor this week, w/o all the makeup he wears on Sunday for the tv services. He didn’t look to good. If you are too “good” to visit the sick and dying of the church, then to me something is wrong. This pastor has all his deacons around him that do that type of work, or committees. I also this happen when another member of his church died. Same thing. I guess this is his MO.

@ Preacher’s wife

I’m sure you and your husband are fine folks. In my experience, I’ve cut a lot of slack to my former pastors who weren’t really that great, but who genuinely loved and cared for their congregation. That’s really all I ask. If a pastor is completely mediocre at his job, but is honest, genuinely loves God and genuinely loves people, I’ll take him any day of the week. But the ones I’ve had who have been wolves…..sorry, no slack at all. These self righteous Calvinista clowns who are too busy building their brand name to actually care for anyone have no business being pastors.

@ Lowlandseer:

The Institutes were Calvin’s interpretation of the Scriptures, plain and simple. Which is hilarious because the very writing of the book refutes the idea of SS (that all you need is to read the Scriptures). Look, the simple fact is that the Scriptures do need to be interpreted. It’s just funny that today we have literally thousands of Protestant denoms (and countless independent churches), with wildly varying beliefs, yet each claiming to “just take the plain teaching of the Bible.” The truth is that, despite appeals to the contrary, nobody really believes in SS. We’re all following some tradition. Some of us are just willing to admit to that.

Preacher’s Wife wrote:

3 – When I think of major sin in the church I think of manipulation, duplicitousness, authoritativeness, and gossip. Yes, I have seen elders, other staff members, and lay leaders do all of those and the church has suffered or we have left. But I don’t think that’s the stuff other people would call major sin.

See, I would be thinking abuse, too. Love of money or poor stewardship of it.

I doubt gossip would make the list unless it was lies.

okrapod wrote:

Looking at the church which I left I watched three successive pastors be chewed to bits by a minority of the pew persons until even the denominational hierarchy could not solve the problem.

Both you and Preachers Wife point out that bullies do exist and make life miserable for a pastor and anyone else. Without negating your experience, mine is different. From my interaction with Pastors it appears that pastor schools drive home that such bullies are the norm and they must be on the lookout for anyone who vocally disagrees. Thus pastors, instead of identifying valuable people who they can depend on for independent thought, instead label them as divisive and in need of suppression.

Most people, it seems around 75 percent, will go along unthinking with what ever is proposed. Of the other 25 percent who may disagree most will not venture forward and thus only a tiny percentage actually speak up in opposition, even when something is not just subjectively wrong but objectively wrong. These few who speak up are soon labeled and dismissed. When in opposition, one’s thoughts are rarely clear and without the aid of those present to help clarify the nature of the objection, the thoughts stay muddled. For those in agreement, everything maybe clear but for those opposed they contend internally with a whole range of confusing thoughts and emotions that occur when you are separated from the group thinkers.

In the face of suppression I usually withdraw, others with more dominant personalities will push back more stridently and thus solidifying their negative image.

Is it a suppressed independent thinker or a divisive person, how to tell which is the case? Pastors may labeled those who disagree based on their initial interaction with bullies. Contrast this with some of the small minority who speak up may take on the persona of bullies because that is how they have always been perceived and treated. I am not stating it is all due to such miscommunication and labeling, but I’ve seen enough to dig deeper when I see the situations arise.

Mae wrote:

@ Rob:
#5….drives me crazy! Why is visiting the sick and elderly viewed as menial work? Faithful congregants who have given to the church get shut out because Mr Important has books to write, conferences to go to. Sad commentary on some pastors who know so little, care so little about their flock.

No fame/celebrity in it so why bother, seems to be the prevailing attitude among these types.

@ Alan:
The Institutes do not refute the notion of Sola Scriptura, quite the opposite. As for the thousands of Protestant denominations, well, that isn’t a bad thing, as has been magnificently argued by Kevin Vanhoozer in his book “Biblical Authority after Babel: Recovering the Solas in the Spirit of Mere Protestant Christianity”

Christiane wrote:

Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls…

There is a statement like that in scripture, of course, with details which vary slightly with which translation one is using. So, IMO, we have to take this issue seriously since on the one hand there is scripture and on the other hand there are abuses.

Our rector has said that his major responsibility is the care of souls, and at the time he was talking about the sacraments and the prayers and being available for people who need him as well as his other priestly duties-some of which are reserved to the priest and some of which are not.

So I can see ‘co-operate with the leadership when they are fulfilling their function diligently and are actually caring for souls, if possible’, as a reasonable idea behind that comment in scripture.

Lowlandseer wrote:

As for the thousands of Protestant denominations, well, that isn’t a bad thing, as has been magnificently argued by Kevin Vanhoozer…

Was one of his arguments “With thousands of denoms, no single one can reach critical mass to take over, dominate, and make themselves The One True Way”?
(also see above comment)

Does anybody else ever get the feeling like TGC writers write some things just to see what they can get away with and how blind their followers are?

@ okrapod:
in the context of the other two ‘take-aways’ I can see how that scripture could be mis-used

there is, within the Body of Christ, a collegial benefit from sharing points of view, which forcing women to keep silent does impact;
and blind obedience to anyone violates the principle of moral conscience which operates together with personal responsibility for one’s actions

I place the ‘photo’ in response to the triad taken as a whole …… the take-out from Scripture on it’s own merit should operate successfully as you describe it with the pastor in service to Christ caring for those he ministers to, yes

Thought: Church problems (caused by leaders and members) are as old as the New Testament. The NT would be smaller if that were not the case.

The solution: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this will all men know you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35

He repeats the command three times! We are hard of hearing.

Faith wrote:

Sadly, this is just not a problem with the Calvanistas. My most recent church experiences were with churches from a holiness tradition and anabaptist tradition

Not sure about Anabaptists per se (I know a couple), but Holiness Tradition always struck me as having an obvious built-in way to go sour: “Holier than Thou” one-upmanship. Because if you to A, B, & C to be Holy, well I can do A, B, C, D, E, F, 3.1416, and Purple! Especially since Holiness “Holiness” can all too easily be defined in NEGATIVE terms, i.e. “Thou Shalt Not”s.

@ okrapod:

Here is the material I put together on the command to love one another drstevej.com/OA-02 – CBC.pdf

Also check out James 2:8; 1 Cor 13. Both reference the same term agapao.

I can’t comment on the book in question, as I haven’t read it (ergo, I haven’t seen the quoted statements in context). But, as Preacher’s Wife has observed, there are instances where congregations are abusive to their ministers. Or, for that matter, to anybody else who challenges the comfortable, country-club status quo. I know of a number of pastors here in Blighty, and from what I can gather there are many more I haven’t heard of directly, whom I would not hesitate to describe as “persecuted” by the very congregations they serve, for doing no more than trying to get them to welcome newcomers and reach out to the community around them. Usurping of leadership, control, abuse, and empire-building are not the sole prerogatives of would-be gurus and seminary apparatchiks.

But it does seem odd that the gospel coalition would write about this, when they and organisations like them are so committed to giving power to the pulpit. For all my opening remark about context, I’m struggling to think of a context in which the word “subordinates” belongs in the body of Christ.

Lea wrote:

See, I took that as staff they directly supervised

I assumed that was what was meant, too, but even so!

Yup, Nick! We Catholics face similar issues. We had a pastor who wanted to take our parish in a more traditionalist direction, which many of us supported. But the aging-hippie Folk Mass ladies (very vocal and powerful, I might add) raised a ruckus and squawked to the bishop. That said, the pastor didn’t help matters much. All sorts of compromises were proposed, but he refused them all, picked up his toys, and left the sandbox. Translation: He joined the FSSP, a traditional religious order. Thereby leaving us high and dry. So, yeah, this was a case of Pastor Abuse…but at the same time, the pastor wasn’t faultless either.

Now we have the most wonderful pastor. He is from Cameroon, has a PhD from Rome, and speaks five languages, yet he is so humble and ready to serve. What’s more, he radiates joy. It’s downright infectious! He is not as Liturgically Correct as the former pastor, but he is orthodox and extremely pastoral. That is what our parish needed. It has been very healing. I know we won’t be able to keep him forever – a priest with a PhD from Rome is kind of a valuable commodity, and we are just a little rural mission under the mantle of a small inner-city parish – but I sure do hope we can keep him for awhile. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t love him.

I nice companion piece to the TGC article highlighted in this post is this article recently posted by 9Marx: https://www.9marks.org/article/why-you-will-join-the-wrong-church/. It basically says, “If you don’t like your church, too bad, you don’t get to leave because you entered a covenant.”

Spartacus wrote:

Yes. Pretty telling when men o’gawd resort to the adviser whose name is synonymous with ruthless power grabs.

I was startled when I saw them quoting him.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Given the source, my Newspeak-to-English translator gives “HOW! DARE!! THEY!!!”

You always make me laugh!

@ Catholic Gate-Crasher:
I am so glad you are here! Great comment.

Lowlandseer wrote:

@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
1) No.
2) Which comment?

2) The link to the Republic of Holy Gilead JPEG higher in the stream.

(Can you just see Commander Piper squealing with delight? Commander Driscoll snapping up all the Handmaids he can? And both Commander Dougs as extermination-camp commandants?)

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

Leadership schools in the military look at dissent in a surprisingly different way than typical church leadership. In the military troops complaining is considered a somewhat healthy part of normal life. The time to be concerned is when everyone goes silent; that is when you need to watch your back as a leader and when unit discipline is about to go south.

I think the Neo-Calvinist leaders want everyone in the pews to go silent. They want to silence all dissent, because they perceive dissent/disagreement as a threat to their position of authority. Remember, in the Neo-Calvinist world, those in the pews are not equal to the pastors/elders. Those in the pews are the “subordinates” as Doriani points out. Their world view is all about control and they, the leaders, must be on top and calling all the shots. When they don’t get their way and things don’t run smoothly according to their plans, it’s not their fault. It’s the recalcitrant pew peons fault for not getting in line with the vision of the *New Reformation.*

ishy wrote:

Want to see something really interesting? Do a Google search on “Gospel Coalition Machiavelli”. It will ring some major alarm bells.

Yes….creepy. Something that jumped out at me. Under Bell Creek Community Church, a church which supports TGC, it states the following: “Machiavelli said there is nothing more difficult in leadership than creating a new order.” Now that rings high on the creep-o-meter!

@ Lowlandseer:

SS says that all you need is the Bible. Writing a book to explain what the Bible means, by definition negates SS. Unless Calvin wrote the book merely for entertainment purposes.

It’s fine to believe that thousands of denoms are a good thing, but to do so with you any level of consistency, you’d have to acknowledge two things: 1) you’re not really going by “just the Bible” and 2) your chosen beliefs are simply what you decided to believe and have no basis in historic Christianity.

@ Rob:
On point.

@ Alan:
LOL

Darlene wrote:

I think these Neo-Cal pastors consider the local church *their* church and not the church of Jesus Christ.

The Neo-Cals takeover local churches for the new reformation through stealth and deception. They don’t have Jesus on their mind while they do that. It’s all about the movement and increasing the number of “their” churches. They are more concerned about pleasing Calvin than Christ.

Darlene wrote:

Neo-Cal pastors

And another thing. It’s not appropriate to call these folks “pastors”. They just don’t meet the Biblical job description for that role. They are self-proclaimed pastors, who are not living up to that title in far too many places.

What strikes me in the article is how he tiptoes around, IMO, the issue of “expectation management.” Charity in both directions is warranted–both towards pastors AND congregants.

Like any job, I think it is completely fair to tell the church straight up what they are getting. They are not getting “two for one” in hiring ONE senior pastor (even though, he or she is married). They are not getting on call spiritual care services for a congregation of 1,000. That is unreasonable and a recipe for burn out. I could go on… (and encourage declaring one’s theology up front as well–e.g. Calvinista or otherwise).

And part of it is simply grounding as a pastor. My worth, value, and identity is not captive to this job or the feedback I get from a congregation including the boss (or elder board). Losing sight of that is what is going to destroy a pastor in the long run, IMO.

Max wrote:

Darlene wrote:
Neo-Cal pastors
And another thing. It’s not appropriate to call these folks “pastors”. They just don’t meet the Biblical job description for that role. They are self-proclaimed pastors, who are not living up to that title in far too many places.

Well, the way I see it, the adjective “Neo-Cal” (or New Calvinist, Calvinista) cancels out the word “pastor.” 🙂

GSD wrote:

Doriani does have a point in that we have developed a system that places massive expectations on one guy who rules over the organization. He thinks we should adjust our expectations. I think we should adjust the ONE guy and the ruling OVER. A TEAM of servants being a foundation UNDER is a more New Testament solution.

Yes. Doriani is just doing the typical whining. They want all the power and authority but none of the bad stuff that comes with it. Honestly, these guys could not last a single day in management in the real world. They couldn’t last a couple of hours in manual labor in the real world. They must be adored and obeyed or they melt down.

Sometimes my mind goes stream of consciousness in search of a joke. In this instance I was looking for an irrelevant quote by another Italian who’s name sounds like Machiavelli. Somehow I ended up with Spindarella who is as relevant as Machiavelli and has something to say to the boys club at the Coalition. Here’s a short excerpt.

Spinderella’s not a fella what you say?
Spinderella’s not a fella that’s ok
Spinderella’s not a fella watch her play
Spinderella’s not a fella but a girl DJ

Interesting Fact: Spindarella became the DJ for Salt N Pepa after Ricky Lake was initially offered the job. The men at the Coalition have yet to release a statement on her assertions for fear that they are true.

JeffT wrote:

Nancy2 wrote:
What if the pastor is a wolf?
Acts 20:29 – “For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.”
And this one:
Matthew 7.15:”Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Here’s what you learn from TGC:
Rule 1 – If your pastor sins, well, were all sinners so let it go
Rule 2 – If a congregant disagrees with the pastor, the congregant is in sin and must be subjected to church discipline

And that’s pretty much the sum of it. Perfectly put.

Gram3 wrote:

Jimmy wrote:
It’s a short and incomplete article on a complex subject but I think overall he did a great job summarizing some great points.
I’m trying to see how that sentence makes any sense of the common sort.

I think we’ve had our fair share of trolls lately at TWW, protecting their NeoCalvinist superheros.

Darlene wrote:

One thing I’ve learned from TWW (thank you Deebs) and the commentators here, is that these sneaky pastors/elders know how to worm their way into a congregation by saying the right words to deceive the pastor search committees because the end (the goal of Calvinizing that local church body) justifies the means.

The Cause so Righteous it justifies any means whatsoever.

Just ask Citizen Robespierre, Comrade Pol Pot, and Mullah Omar.

Max wrote:

In the meantime, watchmen in the pew are forced to wound (correct and rebuke) their pastors if need be.

I agree 100%, but few people are willing to do this.

__

“Is TGC Pastoral Accountability Going Out The Window?”

hmmm…

TGC (The Gospel Coalition) is a Calvinist 501(c)3 non-profit para-church organization. It is well known for praising and supporting abusive pastors who do not meet the scriptural (biblical) criteria for church leadership.

Where Calvinism is the name of the game?

huh?

This organization is well know for peddling Calvinist theology (TULIP) as the true gospel. They are a part of a Calvinist good ole boy network of other church groups such as Acts29, and para-church organizations such as Together 4 The Gospel (T4G) , CBMW, and 9Marks, which are peddling the same thing.

(Their systematic Baptist 501(c)3 church takeover assistance is. quite pronounced.)

What?!?

Religious Hazard Alert?

gump

WARNING: Checking out these organizations could very well be hazardous to you, your family, and your church well being as well,

Be Web Aware! Know the story. Know the score.

These ‘religious’ men ‘may’ hurt you if you let them…

(sadface)

ATB

Sopy

—

Darlene wrote:

the adjective “Neo-Cal” (or New Calvinist, Calvinista) cancels out the word “pastor.”

Well, I have yet to meet one in my area (you will know them by their lack of fruit). The YRR church planters here love to call themselves “lead pastor” … even if they are the ‘only’ pastor at a church! If they would spend as much time loving and serving the sheep as they do combing their hair and tweeting their lives away, folks might form a different opinion about them in my community.

Max wrote:

Darlene wrote:
the adjective “Neo-Cal” (or New Calvinist, Calvinista) cancels out the word “pastor.”
Well, I have yet to meet one in my area (you will know them by their lack of fruit). The YRR church planters here love to call themselves “lead pastor” … even if they are the ‘only’ pastor at a church! If they would spend as much time loving and serving the sheep as they do combing their hair and tweeting their lives away, folks might form a different opinion about them in my community.

Or senior pastor….got to love the prestige, ya’ know.

Mae wrote:

senior pastor

While “Senior” pastor is tossed around throughout Christendom, “Lead” pastor is a dead-giveaway that you have walked into a New Calvinist church! Neither title reflects humility or servant-hood which should be characteristic of the pulpit. I keep waiting for some young reformer to call himself “The Man”. To which Nathan the prophet should point a finger in his face and proclaim “Yes, you are the man!”

Mae wrote:

them a taste of their own medicine. Start wearing nametags which read: head honcho parishioner, senior SS teacher, lead choir member, etc. Have business cards to hand out too.

How about “Senior Watchman”?

@ Christiane:

I gather from various sources that there is a strong reformed influence in the american redoubt.

Max wrote:

While “Senior” pastor is tossed around throughout Christendom, “Lead” pastor is a dead-giveaway that you have walked into a New Calvinist church! Neither title reflects humility or servant-hood which should be characteristic of the pulpit.

“So shall I exalt MY Throne above that of the Most High!”

okrapod wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
My mind does it all the time.

I remember the good old days when I had a mind, but I seem to have misplaced it along the way.

“I’m used to my bifocals,
My dentures work just fine,
I can live with my arthritis,
But I sure do miss my mind.”
— heard on the radio many-many years ago

Max wrote:

The YRR church planters here love to call themselves “lead pastor” … even if they are the ‘only’ pastor at a church! If they would spend as much time loving and serving the sheep as they do combing their hair and tweeting their lives away…

Like Donald Trump wanna-bes?

Deb & Dee have written about followers imitating their gurus in everything. That particular choice of role model (at least the public image) would explain a lot…

Janey wrote:

This incredible TED talk on the cover-up by scientists and officials in the Flint water scandal, reminds me a lot of the the arrogant attitudes of certain pastors who care only about their positions and don’t have compassion on the average person in their churches.

Milton Friedman had a quote about politics that “It’s nice to elect the right people, but that isn’t the way you solve things. The way you solve things is by making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things. ”

I think this is true in a number of areas. You need to make it so exposing a problem in your organization is good for you. And you need to make everyone believe it. There is a bit of this mindset in some health care reviews, you want to really look at what has gone wrong and how to fix it in a non-punitive way.

But then otoh, I think no amount of structure and good polity in churches will overcome back ethics and truly bad people, in churches or the pulpit. The only thing you can do is limit their power, both limiting the amount of damage they can do and making it so people seeking power are not drawn to these positions.

okrapod wrote:

I had no backup plans.

I have a friend with a less dramatic issue (kitchen redo) who is using an instapot to cook a lot of things.

But on the survivalist front, I think some people are more wired to planning for and worrying about disasters than others. But there are some things you will never be prepared enough to handle!

Rob wrote:

7. The pastor is a CEO so he needs to hang out with the other leaders in his congregation, especially those that play golf.

Actually I’ve noticed many hang out with CEO’s from other franchises.

@ okrapod:
NYT, has an article on how to build a bomb shelter! Hubby and me were thinking about getting some, handy dandy, solar panels. Did a complete kitchen redo two years ago…am definitely not the type to survive the apocalypse.

Christiane wrote:

a side note:
“Gianforte and his wife, Susan, live in Bozeman, Montana, and together they have four children.[88] The Gianfortes attend Grace Bible Church, a nondenominational church in Bozeman”

Grace Bible Church rang a bell ….. sure enough, looking at the church info was revealing of the place of women in said church

And the WaPo reports that the Denver city council has lowered the penalty for the first two offenses of domestic *violence* to the same level as shoplifting. The explicit reason for doing this is so that illegal immigrants who commit two or fewer instances of domestic *violence* are protected from deportation. Hopefully all of the women (and men) subjected to domestic *violence* in those first two instances are not hurt too badly. Only “Repeated Domestic Violence” (more than 2x) is deemed important enough to warrant real jail time and makes the immigrants subject to deportation. In other words, all women (and men) in Denver have lost protection against domestic *violence* because of a political trend (regardless of which side of the trend one is on) and this is seen as a good thing. I do not understand how that is good for women, Christiane.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/05/24/denver-fights-back-against-trumps-deportation-crackdown-with-surprisingly-simple-change-in-law/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.6e3a35505ee6#comments

Sopwith wrote:

This organization is well know for peddling Calvinist theology (TULIP) as the true gospel. They are a part of a Calvinist good ole boy network of other church groups such as Acts29, and para-church organizations such as Together 4 The Gospel (T4G) , CBMW, and 9Marks, which are peddling the same thing.

Just Neo-Cal outfits Sopy? I think you’ll find a $#itload of non-calvinist places of worship that are just as abusive and dangerous to one’s mental and spiritual health.

@ Gram3:
In Boston last month two physicians were murdered during a robbery. Murderer had worked briefly at their condo in maintenance. Come to find out, the year before
he’d been caught robbing a bank, but he was only given a 364 day sentence, anything longer would have subjected him to deportation.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Did the church info include a picture like the Handmaid’s Tale screencap that surfaced on either this thread or another of the recent ones?

worse: it showed the ‘Board of Directors’ pictures: a line-up of all white males …. not a woman in the group, not even as a ‘token’

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

After that, I’m facing an uphill battle on the cabinet reface; does that need any sort of permits?

I don’t know about permits in your town. I do know that if you do the work yourself and just don’t tell anybody then nobody will know. I don’t know what a cabinet reface is, but DIY for new cabinet doors ought to be doable.

“No church should expect its pastor(s) to excel in the prophetic, kingly, and priestly aspects of godly leadership.” (Dan Doriani)

Well, this was not an expectation of the 1st century church! They expected to find godly leaders in place; and, if they weren’t, watchman would flag the charlatans for the church to deal with. However, it’s not a big surprise to discover this with 21st century church leaders. Anointed godly leaders today are rare and endangered species. Early pastors excelled in ministry to the Body of Christ because they were filled with the Spirit and were devoted to prayer and study of God’s Word. There’s not enough spiritual power in the average pulpit today to blow the dust off a peanut.

Joe Reed wrote:

There’s a huge difference between a “shut up and do what you’re told” and “please don’t endlessly complain about your pastor’s natural shortcomings.”

Considering the guy spends half the article referencing Machiavelli, the first one seems to fit rather well.

@ Max:
Max, help me out: that word ‘godly’, can you give me some synonyms please that work in the same context as the way you use ‘godly’

thanks

Christiane wrote:

once a person commits a crime …. throw the bum out, YES !!!

Agreed. The problem is that the Culture of Victimhood has created a problem because now there is competition among the victims. Domestic violence violence is outranked by illegal immigrants who commit domestic violence. Little girls are killed at a concert and pundits go on the air worrying about a backlash of bigotry against Islam which is currently a favored victim class. Nevermind that it is the pundits themselves who conflate political Islamism with Islam. It is insane, IMO. No one can speak the truth. Lawlessness with the endless legalism of Political Correctness.

Joe Reed wrote:

when you complain about everything, at some point one can’t take any analysis seriously.

Well, that’s pretty much how the commenters view the articles like Doriani’s and many of the ones that appear at TgC and 9Marks. They complain endlessly about how difficult it is to be a pastor. That’s why it is difficult for the average pewpeon here to take them seriously.

okrapod wrote:

Here is my conclusion. And I believe that I am right, partly because I am always right of course (sarcasm). It is not about theology. It is about caste and class in a southern town … understand little and care less. Clueless. I stake by last Reese’s Cup on it.

I’ll buy that Reese’s Cup for you! In my humble, but accurate, opinion, you are right! Most Southern Baptists (actually, most church folks) don’t give a whoop about theology as long as you give them what they want. I remember a news interview with Robert Schuler (Crystal Cathedral) years ago in which the reporter asked him what he credited the popularity of his ministry and growth of his church to. He replied that he simply canvassed the people in the community, asked them what they wanted in a church experience, and then proceeded to give that to them. Bill Hyblels(Willowcreek) essentially did the same thing with his “seeker-friendly” ministry.

Most Southern Baptists could not explain non-Calvinist vs. Calvinist theology to you. But, if you mess with their potluck dinners, you’ll hear about it! The New Calvinists knew this about Southern Baptists; thus, the SBC has been easy pickins’ for a takeover.

Max wrote:

Very strange days, as a minority takes over the majority without a whimper.

Governments have been overthrown the same way.

Nancy2 wrote:

The poor things are too busy blogging, attending conferences, and writing books to pastor.

And getting paid time off to do all of those things. Plus vacation time. To be clear, I am not talking about the many pastors who do *not* get all of these benefits. But those pastors are not the ones writing these articles and blogs complaining about the people who are funding their chosen lifestyle. Let them try earning a living in the real world with those kinds of benefits while getting only praise and adoration from subordinates. They could never survive.

@ okrapod:

Part 2

3. Because there is a whole lot going on in the culture and in the world right now to worry about, so who has time to worry about every little detail (doctrines that are only somewhat different) at church. It just is not on the top of a lot of people’s lists of things to be concerned about.

4. Because some neo-cal ideas fit very nicely with some political ideas, so even if folks thought the church was going a bit too far they still would be apt to think that too far or not at least they were going in the right direction.

As soon as I hit ‘post comment’ I will think of more, but for now enough is enough.

okrapod wrote:

This church was the one that stayed ‘conservative’ while three other large local churches pulled out of SBC. This church has redesigned itself to appeal to one economic class higher than they did 30 years ago when I first moved to this town, and they did this intentionally under the pastor at the time.

i.e. They deliberately became the Rich White Guys’ Church.

Well, that should provide enough Tithes for Lead Pastor’s Lifestyle of the Rich and Famous…

@ ishy:

“Does anybody else ever get the feeling like TGC writers write some things just to see what they can get away with and how blind their followers are?”
++++++++++++++++++

they seem to try to be provocative. certainly for the attention it brings them. but also, i think, to throw people off balance, for the disruption.

i think of john piper… in trying to understand who in the world this ferret-with-power is, i’ve watched a good deal of video footage & looked at photos. there are a number of instances where i observe that he waits until the key moment when he has the audience’s attention in the palm of his hand — when he knows cameras are on him and waiting.

and then he’ll say or do something out of proportion – something extreme, that makes him appear spiritual light years ahead of every other living soul — but more importantly, gives him that much more of a hold on power over people.

isn’t that great. 😐

Christiane wrote:

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
Did the church info include a picture like the Handmaid’s Tale screencap that surfaced on either this thread or another of the recent ones?

worse: it showed the ‘Board of Directors’ pictures: a line-up of all white males …. not a woman in the group, not even as a ‘token’

Can’t remember where I read this, but I once read a reference about a news item “Chrsitian Leaders Concerned About Moral Decline” that mentioned said Christian Leaders in the accompanying pic were ALL older grim-faced white men in expensive suits. (Baptized in Lemon Juice or Vinegar?) The commentary was “THAT is what has become the public face of the church”.

okrapod wrote:

1. One reason is because they don’t care; it is not about theology. It is about the social politics of class. It is about being around like minded people with similar values. It is about having one’s children form friendships with kids from other families who have similar values and similar goals for their children. It is about making all sorts of contacts. It is about having an alternative sub culture where you don’t have to fear that the kids will pick up stuff you don’t agree with. It is about making friends who want the same things out of life that you want. It is about not having to explain all the time or listen to constant promotion of ideas with which you disagree, or tolerate endless and mindless bickering over minor religious positions.

wow ….. that describes a social club, doesn’t it?
I remember once reading about Candy Montgomery, the Wylie, TX ax murderess, whose life was centered around her Church;
it didn’t stop her from having an affair with a member, and when confronted by the man’s wife about the affair, Candy killed her …. in self-defense, she said …. it was over-kill really.

I remember thinking that the description of how the Church was the center that brought all these people together and it seemed so socially active …. I was fascinated by that feature because so little was mentioned about the theology of that Church. I don’t even know what denomination it was, Baptist, I think. Can’t remember. Just remembered the contrasts and how it seemed so strange that a Church could be the center of such a culture in that small town. Quite a story, yes. Candy? She got off. Oh she did it, and confessed, but they let her go free. Her victim: face all bashed in, many many ax blows, over forty. Pretty awful.

Cousin of Eutychus wrote:

In the military troops complaining is considered a somewhat healthy part of normal life. The time to be concerned is when everyone goes silent; that is when you need to watch your back as a leader and when unit discipline is about to go south.

Because that is when critical mass has been reached and the mutiny is about to go down.

Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:

Empires fall when their people either get so fed up and/or beaten down (or both) that they just passively let it fall. The status quo has gotten so bad for them they don’t care any more and figure they have nothing to lose by taking a chance with those Barbarians coming over the walls. Or the Caesar staging the coup. “Couldn’t get any worse than it is now.”

Put the two above blockquotes together.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Calvin subscribed to Sola Scriptura. Yet he felt compelled to write this great, big, humongous, extra-biblical BOOK ‘splaining it all to us. Can someone tell me how that works?

Well, logically speaking, no preacher actually believes in the sufficiency of scripture. You don’t need the Holy Spirit any more, but… you do still need my preaching? Er – no.

Practically speaking, these ideas come about in large part because of what one is fighting against. So; we don’t need Popery – we just need scripture. Obviously, that very quickly grows arms and legs.

For the record, I believe that two and two make either three or five, depending. But those of you who are properly educated and insightful will of course realise that I am not in any sense contradicting myself.

Nancy2 wrote:

drstevej wrote:
The solution: “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this will all men know you are my disciples, if you love one another.” John 13:34-35
He repeats the command three times! We are hard of hearing.
The apostle Paul uses the word “charity” …… He says that without out charity, we are nothing. Charity = love, compassion, agape.

Introducing his great passage on agape/charity Paul said, “But if you are zealous for great gifts, I again shall show you a better way.”
As we will see, philadelphia/brotherly love is also a better way.
Doriani’s better way, on the other hand, is to try (and usually fail) to avoid criticizing pastors and to obey leaders.
2 more “better way” aspects from the Bible:
First, for leaders. The seminary professor MUST have heard that the term for “leaders” in Heb 13 isn’t the common one and means something a bit different. Paul, however, uses the ordinary term for leaders or leading in I Thess, I Tim, a variant in Titus, and in my recommended “better way” passage–Romans 12. In a recent excellent comment on TGC, Bryan quoted Paul, “Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. V10) Just before this, as with I Cor 12, Paul mentions varieties of gifts which are ours by grace through faith as members of Christ’s body. He specifies seven (not a an exhaustive list). Sadly churches tend to encourage members to exercise gift #5 (giving/generosity) to hire leaders to do all the other six. No wonder leaders can’t keep up or measure up. Notice that leading is only number 6 in the list- not necessarily more important than the other six.
Now as for the pastors, who are NOT necessarily the same as leaders, the seminary professor must know they’re mentioned only once in the NT, in the Eph 4 passage he forgot to mention.
And there we see they’re just #4 out of either 4 or 5 equipping gifts (depending on comma placement). They shouldn’t expect to be competent in the other 3-4. It’s possible also, again depending upon comma placement, that they should see themselves as equippers of the saints to be ministers, rather than being ministers themselves.
Hope this is a positive contribution toward a better way, above and beyond my usual tendency to be critical and snarky.

Catholic Gate-Crasher wrote:

Calvin subscribed to Sola Scriptura.

The funny thing about Sola Scriptura is you won’t find it taught in the Bible. So the only way to take Sola Scriptura seriously is to reject it. Likewise, one has to reject the Bible itself because you cannot know which books are supposed to be in the Bible through Sola Scriptura. Without a divinely inspired table of contents, the Bible itself has to be rejected. The Bible is way too important to let it be whittled down to simple solas.

Christiane wrote:

Most Southern Baptists could not explain non-Calvinist vs. Calvinist theology to you. (Max)

Why not? (Christiane)

Well, I hate to admit this, Christiane, since I have been hanging out with Southern Baptists for 60+ years. I have found them to be a very religious people, but spiritually destitute. Why? The average Southern Baptist doesn’t personally read the Word and pray as they ought; they don’t mature spiritually. They certainly have a grasp on the message of the Cross of Christ and the basics of “whosoever will” belief and practice … but they have not formed enough of a doctrinal foundation to debate the ails of New Calvinism.

__

Da Life U ‘save’?…

Muff Potter wrote:

“Just Neo-Cal outfits Sopy? I think you’ll find a (ed. expletive) of non-calvinist places of worship that are just as abusive and dangerous to one’s mental and spiritual health…”

Muff,

HowDee!

Shoot, I’ze juzz be’in pòlitē, and following our gracious blog queen’s blogpost leed! A short answer: Sure, there is a cornucopia of pastoral partial ‘brown’ waste matter being ‘dis-charg-ed’ into the body of Christ; —> pick a brand, pick a proverbial toxin?

hmmm… (don’t get mè started…)

[to late!]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vx2u5uUu3DE

Picture this:

“It is for freedom that Christ has set us free.
Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves
be burdened again by a yoke of slavery…”
— Apostle Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, 5:1

Bump!

“It seems that we have a need to create evangelical gurus, Christian celebrities, superpastors in megachurches, and miscellaneous ‘teachers’ and ‘experts’ that we place on pastoral pedestals. What is it about people, including evangelicals, that explains this apparent need for authority figures, the need to have s o m e o n e CO-SIGN for our lives?”  -Sociologist Ronald Enroth

huh?

Christians often do enter the 501(c)3 church of their ‘choice’ with a mental picture of lush, gentle hills, -being surrounded by other sheep placidly grazing on proverbial green pastures as knowledgeable, able, caring shepherd(s) watches over them; this church ‘viewed’ a tranquil place where people gather while well-equipped and loving shepherd(s) feed them spirit-ual-ly.

BAaaaaaa!

What?!?

Actually, Wosh! many R getting flushed, or are simply leaving the church feeling hurt, abandoned, and possibly abused as well. They may be questioning their faith, the meaning of Christian fellowship, or even doubting the love and compassion of the God they devotedly serve.

Blindsided?

What’s happenening?

* “In our homes, in our churches, and in our programs of Christian education, we must strive to cultivate ‘Critical, Discerning Minds’ if we are to [avoid] the tragedy of churches that abuse…” Dr. Ronald M. Enroth, (Churches That Abuse Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1992, p. 206).

Skreeeeetch !

Q. CAN YOU IDENTIFY AN ABUSIVE CHURCH?

* In paralleling abusive churches of the past with those of today, Dr. Enroth presents characteristics that may serve as warning signals:
*
* There is strong, control-oriented leadership.
* The use of guilt, fear, and intimidation by the leadership to manipulate members and keep them in line.
* Followers led to think that there is no other church quite like theirs, and that God has singled them out for a special purpose.
* Other, more traditional churches are put down as being less “holy.”
* Subjective experience, especially public or group testimonials (sometimes coached), are encouraged and emphasized.
* Many areas of members’ lives are subject to scrutiny, and the church standards established are usually based upon the life-style adopted by the leader.
* Rules and legalism abound.
* Members not following rules established by the leadership (or threatening exposure of the manipulation and abuse) are often labeled “reprobates” or “dupes of Satan,” and are dealt with harshly. Ostracism of former members and excommunication of dissenters are common.
* For members choosing to leave a spiritually abusive church, returning to the realm of normalcy may be difficult.

**

* Q. How Healthy is Your Church?
(The following questions come from the book: Recovering from Churches That Abuse, by Ronald Enroth, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan publishers, 1994.)

* 1. Does a member’s personality generally become stronger, happier, more confident as a result of contact with the group?
* In an abusive church, the use of guilt, fear, and intimidation to control members is likely to produce members who have a low self-image, who feel beaten down by legalism, who have been taught that asserting oneself is 
not spiritual. 
One of the first disturbing characteristics to be reported by relatives and friends of members of these churches is a noticeable change in personality,   usually in a negative direction. 


* 2. Do members of the group seek to strengthen their family commitments?
* Nearly all unhealthy churches attempt to minimize the commitments of their members to their family, especially parents. 
Young people may be told that they now have a new “spiritual” family, complete with leaders who will “re-parent” them. 
Church loyalty is seen as paramount, and family commitments are discouraged or viewed as impediments to spiritual advancement. 


* 3. Does the group encourage independent thinking and the development of discernment skills?
* Control-oriented leaders attempt to dictate what members think, although the process is so spiritualized that members usually do not realize what is going on. 
A pastor or leader is viewed as God’s mouth piece, and in varying degrees a member’s decision making and ability to think for oneself are swallowed up by the group. 
Pressure to conform and low tolerance for questioning make it difficult to be truly discerning. 


* 4. Does the group allow for individual differences of belief and behavior, particularly on issues of secondary importance?
* A legalistic emphasis on keeping rules and a focus on the need to stay within prescribed boundaries is always present in unhealthy spiritual environments. 
Lifestyle rigidity in such groups increase a member’s guilt feelings and contributes to spiritual bondage. This rigidity is often coupled with an emphasis on beliefs that would not receive great attention in mainstream 
evangelicalism. 


* 5. Does the group encourage high moral standards both among members and between members and non members?
* In intense, legalistic churches and religious organizations, the official, public proclamations usually place special value on high moral standards. 
In some instances, there is a double standard between those in leadership and those in the rank and file membership. 
Abusive churches tend to have incidents of sexual misconduct more often than most conventional churches; leaders sometimes exhibit an obsessive interest in matters relating to sex. 


* 6. Does the group’s leadership invite dialogue, advice and evaluation from outside its immediate circle?
* Authoritarian pastors are usually threatened by any outside expression of diverse opinions, whether from inside or outside the group. When outside speakers are given access to the pulpit, they are carefully selected to 
minimize any threat to the leadership’s agenda. 
Coercive pastors are fiercely independent and do not function well in a structure of accountability. 
For the sake of public relations, they may boast that they are accountable to a board of some sort, when in actuality the board is composed of “yes-men” who do not question the leader’s authority. 


* 7. Does the group allow for development in theological beliefs?
Another hallmark of an authoritarian church is its intolerance of any belief system different from its own. 
They tend to measure and evaluate all forms of Christian spirituality according to their own carefully prescribed system, adopting an “us-versus-them” mentality. 

8. Are group members encouraged to ask hard questions of any kind?

* 8. A cardinal rule of abusive systems is “Don’t ask questions, don’t make waves.” 
A healthy pastor welcomes even tough questions. In an unhealthy church disagreement with the pastor is considered to be disloyalty and is tantamount to disobeying God. 
People who repeatedly question the system are labeled “rebellious”, “unteachable”, or “disharmonious to the body of Christ”. 
Persistent questioners may face sanctions of some kind such as being publicly ridiculed, shunned, shamed, humiliated, or disfellowshiped. 


* 9. Do members appreciate truth wherever it is found even if it is outside 
their group?
* Whether they admit it or not, abusive churches tend to view themselves as spiritually superior to other Christian groups. 
This religious elitism allows little room for outside influences. There can be no compromise with external sources, who, the leadership will say, really don’t understand what is going on in the ministry anyway. 


* 10. Is the group honest in dealing with nonmembers, especially as it tries to win them to the group?
* Sometimes abusive groups illustrate a “split-level religion”. There is one level for public presentation and another for the inner circle of membership. 
The former is a carefully crafted public relations effort, the latter a reality level experienced only by the “true believers”. 
Recruitment tactics are usually intense, even if they are not actually deceptive or fraudulent, they can be manipulative or exploitive. 
Sometimes high pressure religious groups are evasive about there true identity: “We really don’t have a name, we’re just Christians.” 
A healthy Christian group should have no qualms about revealing who it is and what its intentions are. 


* 11. Does the group foster relationships and connections with the larger society that are more than self-serving?
* First impressions are not always correct. Sustained contact with an unhealthy church, however, will usually reveal a pattern that is consistent with the characteristics we have identified. 
Members will be requested to serve, to become involved, to sign up for a variety of activities that, upon closer inspection, appear to maintain the system and serve the needs of the leadership. 
Abusive churches thrive on tactics that promote dependency.
Emphasizing obedience and submission to leaders, these churches often require a level of service that is overwhelming to members, resulting in emotional turmoil and spiritual b r e a k d o w n s.
*
* https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N8pra_FWdPc


Conclusion: Spiritual abuse is certainly a stain on the body of Christ. Today, many American churches, and denominations are highly susceptible to it, particularly “de-form-ed” Calvinistic churches or THOSE with a highly disciplined authority structure. Spiritual abuse is subtle and not easily recognizable unless ONE knows what’s ta lōōk for. (The lit’l list above might help you to possibly DETECT, expose, and may help prevent abuse in your neck of Christian ‘pasture’…)

Be Web Aware, Know the score, Be prepared, Take action, and Keep your widdle peepers on da good Lord’s Book.

The ‘life’ you ‘save’ might beeeee ‘youze’ own…

A.T.B.

Sopy

—

scott hendrixson wrote:

Without going into theological or political specifics, what was your impression of this movement when it was happening? Also, how long ago did your wife start to notice that something was off?

Well, I don’t care for theo-politics, so won’t go into specifics … but need to refer to certain aspects of that time in theo-political terms in order to answer your question.

You refer to the “Conservative Resurgence”, which was cast at the time as necessary to stop the liberal drift within SBC seminaries and some churches. Bible inerrancy was the rally cry. As a firm believer in inerrancy of Scripture, I felt that the CR was a noble cause … even though I cringed at the unkind words and actions of SBC leaders to deal with those they labeled as liberal or moderate in belief and practice. I don’t think that CR leaders realized at the time that forces were operating behind the scenes to merge the “Conservative” Resurgence into a “Calvinist” Resurgence (except Al Mohler, of course). The same CR strategies employed by non-Calvinist leaders to purge the denomination of liberals have been used by the New Calvinists to wrest control of the denomination away from SBC’s majority non-Calvinists.

When did my wife first notice that something was off? My wife has been a Christian for about 40 years. She came to faith in Christ reading the New Testament before she ever attended a church. She was disappointed when she did go to church, expecting it to be like the one she discovered in the New Testament. So, she has always felt that something was off! But in regard to New Calvinism, she sensed that things were amiss in SBC ranks about the year 2000, a few years before we both realized that the SBC had made a turn toward New Calvinism.

Max wrote:

They certainly have a grasp on the message of the Cross of Christ and the basics of “whosoever will” belief and practice … but they have not formed enough of a doctrinal foundation to debate the ails of New Calvinism.

seems to me that ‘Christ and Him Crucified’ would be the BEST doctrinal foundation of all; but I think I understand something of what you are saying. When I went to Baptist blogs to learn more about my grandmother’s faith, I found that when I needed clarification, it was not readily forth-coming and there were times when my questions were met with ‘you should know this’ (I didn’t, which is why I asked), and there seemed some impatience with my questions, yes. After a while, I got it that there didn’t seem to be ONE solid comprehension of ‘Who Christ was’ and ‘the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit’ but there seemed to be different points of view regarding these ancient doctrinal themes. So I began to try to be more patient myself and more grateful for every opportunity to learn a little more, if not from the ‘doctrinal’ core, then from the way that people had personally experienced their relationship with Our Lord in their lives, which is something of a REAL lesson in what grace is all about. 🙂

Dave A A wrote:

The seminary professor MUST have heard that the term for “leaders” in Heb 13 isn’t the common one and means something a bit different.

There are lots of things that seminary professors write that they cannot possibly actually believe if they have passed freshman logic. I think they rely upon the rest of us not having passed freshman logic. They also must think that we lack any reading comprehension skills. Or else they lack reading comprehension skills. Not sure which it is. Then there is Piper which is a whole other thing when it comes to comprehension.

Gram3 wrote:

freshman logic…reading comprehension

I just bought an introductory course in formal logic from the Great Courses for my oldest grand kid. I decided to listen to the lectures first, because who knows what all has changed since I was i school, and there is always stuff to be learned.

So, sure enough, intro lecture the man is talking about sociological and scientific research and here is one interesting take away. Humans are not hard wired to be rational (think logically) but we think we are, and we even build civilizations on the belief that we are rational by nature. Homo sapiens after all. Not so. Experiment after experiment shows that not only are we not rational, we hide that from ourselves, make decisions based on other motivations, and then retroactively construct ‘reasons’ for why we have done what we have done.

Not only that, even though logic can be learned, and even though a given person may have identified in himself some propensity for a specific logical error, it makes no matter. We continue to step in the same hole again and again without realizing what we are doing.

He said that this of course raises the issue of so called free will, but that he was not going there in these lectures. All of which is something that neuroscience has been saying for some time now. So, not only do we do this, but also I have seen other studies that say we have actual brain images showing us doing it.

So, no, I do not hold the calvinists or anybody else to any expectation of a natural tendency to be rational.

okrapod wrote:

Experiment after experiment shows that not only are we not rational, we hide that from ourselves, make decisions based on other motivations, and then retroactively construct ‘reasons’ for why we have done what we have done.

Yes, that’s how I do it. 🙂

Lea wrote:

okrapod wrote:
I had no backup plans.
I have a friend with a less dramatic issue (kitchen redo) who is using an instapot to cook a lot of things.
But on the survivalist front, I think some people are more wired to planning for and worrying about disasters than others. But there are some things you will never be prepared enough to handle!

When we were having our bathroom and kitchen renovated (it took about 8 days), I used the woods behind our house for you-know-what. A couple days I stayed with my daughter. It is what it is.

Gram3 wrote:

I noticed it in the face of R. Albert Mohler, up close. That look does not have a name, AFAIK, but it said to me “I am the king” and from that point I knew something was wrong. I have since discovered that others have had the exact same reaction. At the same time, other people were totally mesmerized. So there you have it. Cult of personality.

Indeed, the New Calvinist movement is a cult of personality. Your gut-feel about Pope Mohler’s look was the Holy Spirit prompting you that something was amiss. Count it all joy that you escaped his trance! Those who have been mesmerized by the man have been bewitched. New Calvinism is a spell that has been cast over the Southern Baptist Convention, and few discern it for what it is.

@ scott hendrixson:
Scott, we all learn from the collective experience and various perspectives of TWW commenters. Thanks for your input!

Darlene wrote:

Max, Gram3, Nancy2, Mot….any others that were/are Southern Baptists. Could one (or more than one) of you respond to my question above regarding sexism and racism in the SBC before the Calvinist take-over? It would be nice to get a point of view from insiders. Thanx.

Fro my little corner of the world, the extreme sexism began with the Conservative Resurgence, not the Calvinistas.

Gram3 wrote:

Or else they lack reading comprehension skills. Not sure which it is.

Laziness? This guy describes some really important issues/problems and then for his “better way” he puts in no effort at all to research what the Bible, theologians, social scientists, or historians say about them. instead, he just pulls Hebrews 13 from the top of his mind and throws it out there hoping it’ll stick, and maybe more sheeple will just obey more better, already.

Darlene wrote:

believe that the New Calvinist are taking over in many areas, but I have to ask: With regard to the two issues above, sexism and racism – didn’t these things exist in the SBC long before the Calvinista resurgence? If the answer is yes (and that is the way I see it), then why put all the blame on the Calvinists?

Excellent observation. I was SBC prior to the conservative resurgence, late 1930s to mid 1970s. As to when the current animosity toward and control of women started, either with the resurgence or with the calvinism, I cannot comment. But I was there before the resurgence. I was already grown and married with kids when I left SBC, and that was shortly before the resurgence. So-I spoke that Baptist dialect with a native accent and I was old enough then to comment on it now.

Racism then was segregation. At the risk of going too far let me say that most people did not despise people of other races, but distinctions were made between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ based on cultural attitudes and personal behavior in the areas of education, stable marriages, law abiding or not, willing to work on the job or not, runs one’s own business or not, goes to church or not–in other words and IMO there was culture-ism which often played out along racial lines in people’s minds. Now, was there some of the other stuff left over from the old days-of course there was. But the majority of the white population was not like that. Evidence for this is the fact that the majority of the white population did not oppose the civil rights movement like some people like to portray them, but they were unconscionably silent at the time which is just about as bad.

As to the women’s issue. Max has said it specifically as I saw and experienced it. There was no path to the pulpit or to the board of deacons for women, but women held both jobs (paid jobs) and volunteer jobs in which they had a lot of both influence and self-determination. I never, listen now, never heard a word in SS or from the pulpit about keeping women in their place. Women taught SS, ran the VBS program, managed the BTU program, served as SS Directors, served as camp counselors, wrote articles, were employed by the Long Run Association (Louisville), ran the WMU which was a money raising organization for missions as well as a missions education organization, went to school to be missionaries and were appointed missionaries, and preacher’s wives openly joked about writing their husband’s sermons. Mostly it was women who played the piano and the organ and were sometimes the minister of music. Or like one nurse I knew at the hospital claimed that she did the Greek homework for her SBTS student husband; nobody thought that odd.

When people try to push the idea that the 40s and 50s were bad times for women, they have listened too much to what people say and they were not there. I think they are at least partly being manipulated by people with political agendas. During the war women worked in the factories and hospitals and schools and retail and ran the far and whatever because the men were gone-just like during the civil war. Except by WW II they drove trucks and flew planes. Nobody forgot that, and even though most women went home and had kids after the war the nation did not go back to any pre-war oppression of women like some people may want to believe. Now, were there women who played the poor little helpless me and the you great big wonderful you-man game? They did so by choice, however, and in no way that I ever encountered was that seen as anything but silly and manipulative. The women I encountered in health care and education and who worked in Dad’s legal office and at church were competent and respected (and sometimes feared).

We have the anti-feminism backlash and the neo-cals to thank for what we are seeing in some quarters now.

Gram3 wrote:

It makes no sense to teach that Jesus’ blood has bought reconciliation between the races but not between the sexes.

In the Body of Christ, there should be no division by race, class or gender. None should be subordinated – we are to treat one another as more important than ourselves (Philippians 2:3). “All of you who were baptized ‘into’ Christ have put on the family likeness of Christ. Gone is the distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and female — you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28). To establish distinctions in the Body is to not bear a family resemblance to Jesus.

Max wrote:

In the Body of Christ, there should be no division by race, class or gender. None should be subordinated – we are to treat one another as more important than ourselves (Philippians 2:3). “All of you who were baptized ‘into’ Christ have put on the family likeness of Christ. Gone is the distinction between Jew and Greek, slave and free man, male and female — you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28). To establish distinctions in the Body is to not bear a family resemblance to Jesus.

When Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself”, he didn’t expound on divisions between race or gender!

The 5/28 update asks if anyone noticed the advertisements in the TGC comments. Mine currently has ads showing Ellen kissing a man.

okrapod wrote:

we hide that from ourselves, make decisions based on other motivations, and then retroactively construct ‘reasons’ for why we have done what we have done.

I don’t know if you’re still reading, but there is a book apparently that uses the imagery of the elephant and the rider. The elephant goes (mentally) where it goes and the rider is the PR person, that makes the reasons up sometimes that fit what the elephant has decided (forgive me if this is simplifying, there is a book but I haven’t read it). Anyway, I find that a good way to think about it sometimes.

Janey wrote:

Tip: Don’t try to change a church. (Many of us have tried.) Just vote with your feet. You can’t fix an institution; but God holds you responsible for protecting your family’s emotional and spiritual health from cold and vicious leaders.

Unless one hears clearly from the Lord that they are to stay put, and I mean clearly, I agree entirely. The best place for an abusive church is your rearview mirror as you drive away never to return. Life’s too short, there are people out there who actually are seeking Jesus, do wish to serve, do love others, and are not interested in propping up a king to impart wisdom to them each Sunday, a person should go find those people and quit wasting their time trying to change a system that is designed to destroy true fellowship.

Dave A A wrote:

. instead, he just pulls Hebrews 13 from the top of his mind and throws it out there hoping it’ll stick, and maybe more sheeple will just obey more better, already.

“I Know I’m Right —
I HAVE A VERSE!”